Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1107722171-scaled

Is a populist right-progressive left anti-war alliance still possible?

Both groups have serious differences to overcome, but a shared aversion to the Blob and endless conflict is a powerful motivator.

Analysis | Global Crises
google cta
google cta

Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller announced Tuesday that the U.S. is pulling 2,500 American troops from Afghanistan and hundreds from Iraq and Somalia — a move that is in line with President Trump’s campaign promise to put “America first” and end “forever wars.” It is also a signal that a left-right alliance backing elements of his agenda is not only still possible, but critical as Joe Biden replaces him in the White House.

Trump has already received pushback from the establishment for this latest attempt to wind down U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the exit “premature” and said it “would hurt our allies and delight the people who wish us harm.” The president pushed out his defense secretary, Mark Esper, last week after Esper sent an internal memo warning that the conditions weren’t right for an accelerated withdrawal. 

Meanwhile, Biden, who has traditionally been more hawkish on foreign policy — he voted for the Iraq War — seems to agree with McConnell’s perspective, at least in part. He told Stars and Stripes in February, “These forever wars have to end... but here's the problem, we still have to worry about terrorism,” and suggested he’d maintain a footprint of up to 2,000 troops on the ground, despite a U.S.-Taliban agreement to withdraw all U.S. troops by May 2021.

It’s a good sign for the rise of restraint-minded foreign policy that Biden had to publicly acknowledge that wars in the Middle East have dragged on with no clear goal or end in sight. However, his insistence on leaving a few thousand troops in place, his recruitment of known interventionists to his transition team, and his personal coziness with neoconservatives leaves plenty of cause for concern. In order to hold Biden accountable, it is time for national conservatives and the anti-war left to form at least a temporary coalition to end endless wars and stand against further ill-advised foreign entanglements. 

It seems crazy to imagine these two groups standing on the same side of an issue given how divisive our politics has become in recent years. But Sens. Josh Hawley, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Reps. Ro Khanna, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Thomas Massie, Matt Gaetz, and outgoing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard have all publicly criticized U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and urged a less reactionary approach to foreign policy. Khanna even co-sponsored legislation with Gaetz that would prevent federal funds from being used to go to war with Iran without congressional approval. 

Cross-party coalitions, of course, often sound easier than they are in reality. Both groups have to put aside a lot of baggage to identify areas of commonality. The progressive left has often accused the populist right of rooting its focus on domestic politics in racism and xenophobia and has gone hard after Trump, even as his administration brought a non-interventionist spirit back to the forefront of the foreign policy discussion. These conservatives have been more willing to criticize the failures of capitalism and corporatism than their conventional Republican counterparts but are farther to the right on cultural and social issues. Where both groups agree, and where their shared focus should be during a Biden administration, is in their skepticism of the military industrial complex, their aversion to nation-building, and their awareness of the effects of endless wars on the working class. 

As Sen. Hawley wrote Tuesday in a letter to acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, supporting Trump’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, “sons and daughters are now patrolling their parents’ old routes, and many of the U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan were not even born when the 9/11 attacks occurred… [the American people] deserve to know their sons and daughters will not be put in harm’s way unless it is absolutely necessary.”

Indeed, the well-paid and college-educated lobbyists, military generals, defense contractors, and career politicians dream up conflicts and it is the working class who often join the military to fight in them. The anti-elite strains of the left and the right agree that the era of sacrificing less than one-half of one percent of Americans to perpetuate failed and costly missions abroad is over. 

Biden taking office — and being briefed on national security issues by people like former Amb. Samantha Power and retired Adm. Bill McRaven — won’t be the only challenge for this coalition. The populist wing will separately have to contend with their own party’s potential backslide into neoconservatism. While the neocons were pretty much kicked to the curb after 2016, they will view Trump’s loss as an opportunity to regain control of a fractured party. This would be a huge mistake, as Trumpism pulled in a record number of voters and helped the GOP keep hold of the Senate and make gains in the House. 

In addition, nearly three quarters of Americans support bringing troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The young blood in the GOP will have to work hard to keep the old guard from controlling the party once more, or risk devastating long-term electoral failure.


May 25, 2018: Protest sign in front of Whitehouse to support troops back home. (Shutterstock/Worachai C)
google cta
Analysis | Global Crises
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.